Premium
Role of empirical evidence in US/Canadian dispute on US imports of wheat, wheat flour, and semolina
Author(s) -
Babula Ronald A.,
Jabara Cathy L.,
Reeder John
Publication year - 1996
Publication title -
agribusiness
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.57
H-Index - 43
eISSN - 1520-6297
pISSN - 0742-4477
DOI - 10.1002/(sici)1520-6297(199603/04)12:2<183::aid-agr8>3.0.co;2-z
Subject(s) - wheat flour , economics , expert opinion , empirical evidence , commission , winter wheat , agricultural economics , econometrics , food science , agronomy , chemistry , biology , medicine , philosophy , epistemology , finance , intensive care medicine
This article summarizes the 1994 US/Canadian wheat dispute, and critically compares the analyses of the USDA and Canadian Wheat Board (CWB), with the analysis done by the staff of the US International Trade Commission (USITC staff). The USDA and CWB studies are shown to have primarily relied on “expert opinion,” with the result that data and evidence were not given adequate analytical roles in the analyses. The USDA and CWB studies provided a range of estimates of US wheat program cost effects from Canadian imports that was excessively wide. The USITC staff's empirical model is shown to be a more balanced mix of theory and evidence than the other two analyses, and suggests that such program cost effect estimates fell well between the extreme USDA and CWB estimates. © 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.